The  person  charging  this  material  is  r 
sponsible  for  its  return  to  the  library  fro 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  th 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books 
are  reasons  for  disciplinary  action  and  may 
result  in  dismissal  from  the  University. 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIG 


THE  UNIVE 


OF  ILLIN 


LIBRAR 


MTlr 


L161  — 0-10 


AMENDMENTS  TO  THE 
CONSTITUTION 


OF  THE 

STATE  OF  LOUISIANA 


ADOPTED  AT 
ELECTION  HELD  ON 

9 

NOVEMBER  2,  1948 

Amendments  effective  December  10,  1948 


Printed  by  Authority  of 

WADE  O.  MARTIN,  JR. 
Secretary  of  State 


PRICE,  TEN  CENTS. 


A REVIEW 


OF  THE 


CONSTITUTION 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF 


LOUISIANA, 


IN  CONNECTION  WITH  THE 


CQHJflTUTIONS  OF  1852  AND  1868. 


By  J.  H.  MUSE,  ^ 

4 ^ Jf  ' ''  * y \ 

An  Alumnus  of  the  College  of  Louisiana  in  1832 ; Member  of  the  Bar  of  Louisiana 
since  1833 ; Member  of  the  Legislature  under  the  Constitution  of  1812 ; and 
Author  of  the  Bill  to  abolish  Imprisonment  for  Debt,  passe i^i»  J839-40. 

i , A 

’ \ - 


^ r > 

, New  Orleans  : 


F.  HaiLsell,^ookselier,l8t;ationer  and  Printer,  30  and  36  Camp 
1879. 


j 


UMyliT  St“ ixt’ijh:  l Sr  D 


REVIEW 


'OF  THE 

CONSTITUTION 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  LOUISIANA. 


I propose  to  write  and  cause  to  be  published  a 
review  of  the  constitution  recently  submitted  to  the 
people  of  Louisiana,  in  connection  with  the  consti- 
tutions of  1852  and  1868.  My  reasons  for  placing 
myself  in  this  attitude  before  my  countrymen  and 
honored- fellow  citizens  of  Louisiana,  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

Whilst  the  people  wili  be  called  upon  to  cast 
their  votes  for  or  against  the  constitution  submitted 
to  them  on  the  second  of  December  next,  I am 
thoroughly  convinced;  from  circumstances  which 
have  transpired  since  the  close  of  the  session  of  the 
late  convention,  that  not  one  citizen  in  ten  thousand 
will  ever  have  seen  the  constitution  before  he  casts 
his  vote  for  or  against  it.  I esteem  it  to  be  not 
only  the  privilege,  but  the  duty  of  every  good  citi- 
zen to  inform  himself,  and  to  inform  others,  as  far 
as  possible,  of  the  nature,  merit  and  demerit  of  this 


f 


2 

constitution  before  lie  approaches  the  ballot-box 
.With  increasing  years,  I feel  an  increasing  solici- 
tude for  the  future  welfare  of  my  beloved  country, 
as  well  as  for  the  interest  of  those  with  whom  I 
have  been  connected  in  life  by  many  endearing  ties, 
and  who.  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  I must 
at  no  very  far  distant  day  leave  behind  me. 

“It  is  of  great  reason  (says  a profound  thinker, 
Francis  Lord  Bacon)  that  they  who  have  children 
should  have  respect  to  the  future  unto  which  they 
know  they  must  resign  their  dearest  pledges” — a 
sentiment  which  doubtless  lias  a place  in  the 
bosom  of  every  good  father  of  a family  within  the 
borders  of  Louisiana.  I would  fain  perpetuate*, 
were  it  in  my  power  to  do  so,  the  blessings  of  civil 
society  and  good  government,  which,  up  to  the  close 
of  the  late  civil  war,  gave  value  to  American  citi- 
zenship in  the  State  of  Louisiana,  and  put  the  capi- 
tal stock  of  life  within  her  borders  at  a heavy 
premium,  both  at  home  and  abroad.  In  contribu- 
ting as  far  as  in  my  power  to  the  accomplishment 
of  this  most  desirable  end  I feel  that  I shall  be 
paying  to  some  extent  a debt  of  gratitude  to  my 
beloved  and  adopted  State  of  Louisiana,  in  which, 
from  my  early  boyhood,  I have  found  a home  and  a 
country  to  which  I have  been  indebted  for  all  that 
lias  given  value  to  a life  now  far  spent. 

For  the  last  ten  years  I have  been  struggling- 
with  all  the  power  and  influence  that  I possess  to 


secure,  in  cooperation  with  others,  for  oar  beloved 
Louisiana,  a good  goverment,  under  which  the  ends 
and  purposes  for  which  civil  society  and  govern- 
ments are  formed  might  be  fully  accomplished,  with 
the  least  possible  burden  to  the  people.  In  this 
struggle,  and  in  the  results  of  the  labors  of  the  late 
constitutional  convention,  I confess  I have  felt 
sadly  and  greviously  disappointed. 

Before  entering  upon  the  review  or  discussion  of 
the  constitution  now  before  the  people,  I beg  leave 
to  submit  to  their  consideration  a few  simple  propo- 
sitions : 

I.  The  attribute  of  popular  sovereignty  was 
not  so  merged  in  the  late  constitutional  convention, 
nor  in  the  constitution  which  they  have  submitted 
to  the  people,  as  to  be  forfeited  by  the  rejection  of 
that  constitution,  but  will  remain  in  the  people  in 
its  plenitude. 

II.  The  constitution  of  1868,  which  of  course 
would  remain  in  force  for  the  time  being  should 
the  constitution  now  before  the  people  be  rejected, 
possesses  no  self-sustaining  or  perpetuating  power 
without,  much  less  against,  the  sovereign  authority 
of  the  people. 

III.  The  attribute  of  sovereign  authority  is  not 
confined  to  any  particular  mode  or  form  of  action. 
It  may  act  through  a legislative  body,  as  well  as 
through  a constitutional  convention.  AVitli  a model 
constitution  in  being,  previously  formed  by  dele- 


4 


gates  of  the  people  in  convention,  ratified  by  the 
people,  and  in  practical  and  successful  operation  un- 
til suppressed  by  the  results  of  the  late  civil  war, 
nothing  would  be  more  remote  than  the  necessity  of 
calling  a convention,  in  order  to  vitalize,  revive  and 
re-adopt  the  constitution  of  1852  (a  people’s  consti- 
tution), as  a substitute  for  the  constitution  of  1868. 
What  then  would  be  necessary  1 A simple  legisla- 
tive enactment  referring  the  constitution  of  1852, 
with  the  necessary  amendments  growing  out  of  the 
abolition  of  slavery,  to  the  people  for  ratification, 
as  a substitute  for  the  constitution  of  1868. 

IY.  The  end  to  be  accomplished  would  simply 
be  the  superseding  of  the  constitution  of  1868  by 
the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1852  (with  nec- 
essary amendments),  by  the  sovereign  authority  and 
will  of  the  people  expressed  at  the  ballot-box. 

Before  taxing  the  reader  with  a perusal  of  the 
following  pages,  I would  respectfully  request  his 
attention  to  numerous,  highly  reputable  references 
to  be  found  appended  to  this  review.  And  before 
enteringupon  the  discussion  of  the  constitution  now 
before  the  people,  I desire  to  fix  the  attention  of  the 
reader  on  the  mode  and  manner  in  which  it  has  been 
submitted  to  them  for  ratification  or  rejection.  I 
mean  the  combining  and  consolidating  in  the  same 
ballot-box  the  vote  of  the  people  upon  the  constitu- 
tion with  their  ballots  to  elect  officers  to  fill  offices 
created  by  the  constitution.  In  this  proceeding 


5 


there  is  a clear  departure  from  a long  line  of  most 
respectable  precedents. 

When  the  constitution  of  1812  was  framed  by 
a convention  of  the  people,  under  the  authority  of 
the  enabling  act  of  congress,  it  had  of  course  to  be 
referred  to  congress  for  approval,  and  upon  that 
contingency  the  following  section  or  ordinance  in 
the  general  schedule  was  enacted,  to-wit : 

“ Section  7.  At  the  expiration  of  the  time  after 
which  this  constitution  is  to  go  into  operation,  or 
immediately  after  official  information  shall  have  been 
received  that  congress  have  approved  of  the  same, 
the  president  of  the  convention  shall  issue  writs  of 
election  to  the  proper  officers  in  the  different 
counties,  enjoining  them  to  cause  an  election  to  be 
held  for  governor  and  members  of  the  general  assem- 
bly in  each  of  their  respective  districts.” 

When  the  constitution  of  1815  was  framed  by  the 
convention  chosen  by  the  people,  the  following 
ordinance  was  adopted  under  title  ten,  to-wit : 

‘‘Article  150.  Immediately  after  tiie  adjournment 
of  the  convention,  the  governor  shall  issue  liis 
proclamation,  directing  the  several  officers  of  this 
State  authorized  by  law  to  hold  elections  for  mem- 
bers of  the  general  assembly,  to  open  and  hold  a 
poll  in  every  parish  in  the  State,  at  the  places  des- 
ignated by  law,  upon  the  first  Monday  of  Novem- 
ber next,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  sense  of  the 
good  people  of  this  State  in  regard  to  the  adoption 


6 


or  rejection  of  this  constitution  ; and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  said  officers  to  receive  the  votes  of  all  persons 
entitled  to  vote  under  the  old  constitution  and 
under  this  constitution.  Each  voter  shall  express 
his  opinion  by  depositing  in  the  ballot-box  a ticket 
whereon  shall  be  written,  4 The  constitution  accep- 
ted,’ or  4 The  constitution  rejected.’” 

“Article  152.  Should  this  constitution  be  accepted 
by  the  people,  it  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  gov- 
ernor forthwith  to  issue  his  proclamation,  declaring 
the  present  legislature,  elected  under  the  old  consti- 
tution, to  be  dissolved,  and  directing  the  several 
officers  of  the  State  authorized  by  law  to  hold  elec- 
tions for  members  of  the  general  assembly,  to  hold 
an  election  at  the  places  designated  by  law,  upon 
the  third  Monday  in  January  next  (1846J,  for 
governor,  lieutenant-governor,  members  of  the 
general  assembly,  and  all  other  officers  whose 
election  is  provided  for  pursuant  to  the  provisions 
of  this  constitution.” 

When  the  constitution  of  1852  was  framed  by  the 
convention  of  delegates  chosen  for  the  purpose,  the 
following  ordinance  was  adopted,  to- wit  : 

“ Article  150.  Immediately  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  convention,  the  governor  shall  issue 
his  proclamation,  directing  the  several  officers  of 
this  State  authorized  by  law  to  hold  elections  for 
members  of  the  general  asembly,  to  open  and  hold 
a poll  in  every  parish  in  the  State  at  the  places  des- 


ignated  by  law,  upon  the  first  Tuesday  of  Novem- 
ber next,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  sense  of  the 
good  people  of  this  State  in  regard  to  the  adoption 
or  rejection  of  this  constitution;  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  said  officers  to  receive  the  votes  of  all  per- 
sons entitled  to  vote  under  the  old  constitution  and 
under  this  constitution.  Each  voter  shall  express 
his  opinion  by  depositing,  in  a separate  box  kept  for 
that  purpose,  a ticket  whereon  shall  be  written,  1 The 
constitution  accepted,’  or,  ‘ The  constitution  rejec- 
ted,’ or  some  such  words  as  will  distinctly  convey 
the  intention  of  the  voter.” 

“Article  152.  Should  this  constitution  be  accepted 
by  the  people,  it  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  gover- 
nor forthwith  to  issue  his  proclamation,  declaring 
the  present  legislature,  elected  under  the  old  con- 
stitution, to  be  dissolved,  and  directing  the  several 
officers  of  the  State  authorized  by  law  to  hold  elec- 
tions for  members  of  the  general  assembly,  to  hold 
an  election  at  the  places  designated  by  law,  upon  the 
4th  Monday  in  December  next,  for  governor,  lieu- 
tenant-governor, members  of  the  general  assem- 
bly, secretary  of  state,  attorney-general,  treasurer 
and  superintendent  of  public  education.” 

When  the  constitution  of  1864  (! ! !)  was  framed  by 
a convention  assembled  during  the  war,  the  follow- 
ing ordinance  was  also  adopted  : 

“Article  152.  Immediately  after  the  adjournment 
of  the  convention,  the  governor  shall  issue  his  pro- 


8 


clamation,  directing  the  several  officers  of  this  State 
authorized  by  law  to  hold  elections,  or  in  default 
thereof  such  officers  as  he  shall  designate,  to  open 
and  hold  polls  in  the  several  parishes  of  this  State, 
at  the  places  designated  by  law,  on  the  first  Monday 
of  September,  1864,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the 
sense  of  the  good  people  of  this  State  in  regard  to 
the  adoption  or  rejection  of  this  constitution  ; and 
it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  officers  to  receive  the 
suffrages  of  all  qualified  voters.  Each  voter  shall 
express  his  opinion  by  depositing  in  the  ballot  box 
a ticket  whereon  shall  be  written,  ‘ The  constitution 
accepted,’  or,  4 The  constitution  rejected.’” 

<4  Article  154.  As  soon  as  a general  election  can  be 
held  under  this  constitution  in  every  parish  of  the 
State,  the  governor  shall,  by  proclamation,  or,  in  case 
of  his  failure  to  act,  the  legislature  shall,  by  resolu- 
tion, declare  the  fact,  and  order  an  election  to  be 
held  on  a day  fixed  in  said  proclamation  or  resolu- 
tion, and  within  sixty  days  from  the  date  thereof,  for 
governor,  lieutenant-governor,  secretary  of  the 
state,  auditor,  treasurer,  attorney-general  and 
superintendent  of  education.” 

We  have  cited  the  foregoing  several  precedents 
bearing  upon  the  mode  and  manner  in  which  the 
constitution  now  before  the  people  has  been  submit- 
ted to  them.  We  have  made  the  last  quotation  from 
what  has  been  denominated  the  constitution  of 
Louisiana,  simply  because  this  body  of  men  respect- 


9 


eel  previous  precedents  in  the  government  of  Louisi- 
ana. In  those  precedents  the  wisdom,  patriotism 
and  respect  for  the  unbiassod,  free  and  sovereign 
will  of  the  people,  in  the  adoption  or  the  ratification 
of  the  framework  of  a government  of  their  choice, 
shined  forth  most  brightly  in  every  line  and  sen- 
tence. £To  ballot  was  permitted  to  be  deposited  in 
the  ballot-box  under  any  of  those  ordinances  upon 
any  other  issue  than  that  which  expressed  the  sense 
and  sentiments  of  the  citizen,  upon  the  acceptance 
or  rejection  of  the  constitution  submitted  to  his  ap- 
proval or  disapproval.  This,  it  must  be  apparent  to 
the  minds  of  the  citizens  of  to-day,  was  the  only 
method  by  which  a free,  unbiassed  and  impartial 
vote  or  ballot  could  have  been  deposited  in  the  bal- 
lot-box, and  these  lights,  we  think,  ought  to  have 
shone  upon  the  councils  of  those  who  have  framed 
and  submitted  to  the  people  the  constitution  now 
before  them.  But  what  is  the  ordinance  upon  this 
subject  which  has  been  adopted  in  the  constitution 
now  submitted  to  the  people 

“Article  258.  Immediately  after  the  adjournment 
of  this  convention,  the  governorshall  issue  his  procla- 
mation, directing  the  several  officers  of  the  State 
authorized  by  law  to  hold  elections  for  members  of 
the  general  assembly,  to  open  and  hold  a poll  in 
every  parish  of  the  State,  at  the  places  designated  by 
law,  upon  the  first  Tuesday  in  the  month  of  Decem- 
ber next,  1879,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  sense 


10 


of  the  good  people  of  this  State  in  regard  to  the 
adoption  or  rejection  of  this  constitution  ; and  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  said  officers  to  receive  the  votes 
of  all  persons  entitled  to  vote  under  the  constitution 
of  1868.  Each  voter  shall  express  his  opinion  by 
depositing  in  the  ballot-box  a ticket  whereon  shall 
be  written  or  printed,  ‘ Eor  the  constitution,’  or, 
‘Against  the  constitution,’  or  some  such  words  as 
will  distinctly  convey  the  intention  of  the  voter. 
It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  governor  in  his 
said  proclamation  to  direct  the  said  officers  author- 
ized by  law  to  hold  elections,  to  open  and  hold  a poll 
at  the  above  stated  time  and  places  for  the  election 
of  governor,  lieutemnt-governor,  members  of  the 
general  assembly,  secretai-y  of  state,  attorney- 
general,  state  auditor  and  superintendent  of  pub- 
lic education,  and  of  ail  officers  whose  election  is 
provided  for  in  this  constitution  ; and  the  names  of 
the  jiersons  voted  for  shall  he  written  or  printed  on 
the  same  ticket  and  deposited  in  the  same  hox  as  the 
votes  for  or  against  tlip  constitution .” 

The  foregoing  ordinance  is  without  precedent  in 
the  history  of  the  government  of  Louisiana,  except- 
ing only  in  the  carpetbag  constitution  of  1868, 
which  we  propos&  particularly  to  notice  hereafter. 

What  is  to  be  the  effect  of  the  general  elections  to 
fill  the  offices  created  by  the  constitution  at  the  same 
time  that  the  vote  of  the  people  is  to  be  expressed 
upon  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  constitu- 


11 


tion  1 Manifestly  collateral  issues  of  the  most  in- 
tense interest  are  to  mingle  with  the  voice  of  the 
people  upon  the  constitutional  question — issues  in 
which  the  merit  or  demerit  of  the  constitution  itself 
is  likely  to  be  lost  sight  of.  The  multitudinous 
officers  created  by  the  constitution,  from  the  gover- 
nor down  to  a justice  of  the  peace,  with  their  emolu- 
ments, open  up  at  once  a fierce  and  exciting  struggle, 
unparalleled  in  the  history  of  Louisiana,  as  is  already 
abundantly  manifest.  These  offices  are  as  so  many 
political  prizes,  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  not 
less  than  three  hundred  and  twenty-five  to  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars,  suspended  upon 
the  contingency  of  the  ratification  of  the  constitu- 
tion ; whilst  the  contestants  for  each  prize  already 
in  the  field  would  perhaps  amount  to  an  average  of 
at  least  ten  or  more,  whilst  the  numbers  who  sym- 
pathize with  the  contestants  would  form  u a multi- 
tude which  no  man  could  number.” 

Eor  this  state  of  things  the  people  are  indebted 
mainly  to  the  submission  of  the  carpetbag  consti- 
tution in  the  same  manner  as  the  one  before  the 
people  has  been  submitted,  and  especially  to  the 
vast  field  of  political,  professional  and  judicial 
enterprise  which  was  opened  up  in  the  carpetbag' 
constitution — a constitution  conceived,  framed  and 
put  in  operation,  and  the  machinery  of  government 
created  by  it,  run  not  in  the  interests  of  the  people, 
nor  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  but  for  the  benefit 


12 


of  the  ruling  power,  under  which  men  sought  for 
private  fortunes,  wealth  and  independence  as  others 
do  in  the  private  pursuits  or  honorable  enterprises  of 
life.  Upon  a fallen,  exhausted  and  ruined  people, 
the  authors  of  that  instrument  doubled  and  trebled 
the  burdens  of  government. 

Had  that  frame  work  of  an  organized  oppression 
been  submitted  to  the  people  upon  its  own  naked, 
isolated  merits  or  demerits — especial ly  had  it  con- 
tained a clause  excluding  all  from  holding  office 
who  had  participated  in  the  formation  of  it — it  is 
extremely  doubtful  to  this  day,  at  least  in  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  whether  it  would  have  been  ratified  by 
the  people.  There  is  another  deplorable  circum- 
stance existing  at  this  time  which  is  calculated  to 
secure  a large  vote  in  favor  of  the  ratification  of 
the  constitution  before  the  people,  without  special 
reference  to  its  merits.  The  universal  dearth  in  the 
results  of  active  labor  and  employment  in  every 
branch  arid  department  of  business,  trade  and  pro- 
fession, is  such  as  to  prompt  multitudes  of  men  to 
flee  from  the  hardships  of  productive  labor  and  pri- 
vate enterprises  and  pursuits  to  the  more  remuner- 
ative employment  in  the  various  offices  of  the 
government.  The  field  of  enterprise  in  this  re- 
spect, which  was  opened  up  under  the  constitution 
of  1868,  was  overwhelm ly  great  and  seductive.  It 
is  still  very  great  under  the  constitution  now  sub- 
mitted to  the  people. 


13 


We  now  propose  to  consider  article  140 : “Until 
otherwise  provided  by  law,  the  general  State  elec- 
tions will  beheld  once  every  four  years  (!!),  on  the 
Tuesday  next  following  the  third  Monday  in  April.” 

In  this  article  of  the  constitution,  the  people  will 
at  once  perceive  a change,  extraordinary  and  funda- 
mental, in  the  organic  law  of  Louisiana,  and 
a departure  from  the  fundamental  principles  of 
a popular  government.  There  is  a suppression  of 
the  voice  of  the  people  at  the  ballot-box  for  a 
period  of  four  years  (counting  from  the  general 
election,  2d  December  next,  until  April,  1884,  will 
be  four  years  and  five  months);  and  this  suppression 
of  the  popular  voice  applies  to  both  branches  of  the 
legislature.  It  also  involves  the  very  extraordinary 
feature  of  a senate  and  house  elected  for  the  same 
term  and  at  the  same  time.  It  involves  clearly  a 
subversion  of  the  principle,  that  the  popular  voice 
is  to  be  heard  in  the  popular  branch  of  the  legisla- 
ture more  frequently  and  at  shorter  periods  than 
in  the  senate,  in  which,  being  of  longer  duration  in 
the  term  of  office,  a more  stable  and  conservative  body 
of  men  are  presumed  to  act  rather  as  a check  upon 
hasty  or  not  well-considered  legislative  acts  origina- 
ting in  the  popular  branch.  This  principle  is 
eminently  conspicuous  in  the  organic  law  of  the 
United  States,  under  the  provisions  of  which 
the  senatorial  term  is  fixed  at  six  years,  whilst 
the  term  of  office  of  the  members  of  the  house 


14 


of  Representatives  is  fixed  at  two  years;  thus 
giving  the  people  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
in  the  councils  of  the  nation  by  the  election 
of  delegates  every  two  years.  This  principle  in  the 
organic  law  of  the  United  States  has  been  followed 
in  the  formation  of  every  constitution  in  the 
United  States,  excepting,  perhaps,  in  one  or  two 
instances  of  recent  date.  In  this  departure  from 
precedents  long  established  there  is  involved  two 
manifest,  incongruities,  for  which  it  would  be  very 
difficult  in  our  judgment  to  find  any  satisfactory 
explanation.  In  the  first  place,  if  both  branches  of 
the  legislature  are  to  be  elected  at  the  same  time 
and  for  the  same  term,  why  not  both  occupy  the 
same  legislative  hall,  and  both  together  form  an 
executive  council,  to  act  as  such  in  confirming  or 
rejecting  executive  appointments,  and  indeed  per- 
form all  the  functions  which  the  Senate,  heretofore 
elected  for  a longer  term,  a little  more  remote  from 
the  people,  and  a little  nearer  the  executive  branch 
of  the  government,  and  more  likely  to  be  further  from 
the  transient  and  outside  influences  than  the  popu- 
lar branch  of  the  legislature,  has  performed. 

In  the  secoud  place,  upon  the  theory  of  the  pop- 
ular government,  that  the  will  of  the  people 
expressed  in  the  forms  of  legislation,  by  their  rep- 
resentatives recently  chosen  at  the  ballot-box,  is  to 
form  the  law  of  the  commonwealth,  what  conceiva- 
ble reason  can  there  be  for  suppressing  this  only 


15 


recognized  power  of  a popular  government  for  a 
term  of  four  years  ? Have  they  lost  capacity  for 
self-government?  Or  is  it  intended  that  this  consti- 
tution, once  accepted  by  the  people,  shall  become  a 
self-shutting  and  self-fastening  machinery  ? Xo  in- 
gress from  without,  and  no  disturbance  by  the 
voice  of  the  people  at  the  ballot-box  for  the  long 
repose  of  four  years. 

By  an  ordinance  in  this  constitution,  No. , 

it  is  provided  that  the  constitution  may  be  amended 
when  two-thirds  of  the  members  elected  to  both 
house  shall  concur  in  amendments,  which  amend- 
ments are  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  next 
general  election. 

Suppose,  then — which  is  hardly  a supposeable 
ease — that  amendments  should  be  agreed  upon  at  the 
first  session  of  the  legislature  held  under  this  con- 
stitution, when  would  such  amendment  reach  the 
people  at  the  ballot-box?  In  April,  1884.  But 
suppose — which  is  a thousand  to  one  more  suppose- 
able — that  no  amendment  should  be  agreed  upon 
until  the  session  of  the  legislature  to  be  held  in 
May,  1884,  when  would  those  amendments  reach 
the  people  at  the  ballot-box  ? In  April,  1888.  The 
prospect  of  an  amendment  can  furnish  but  little 
ground  for  the  ratification  of  this  constitution. 

We  propose  now  to  consider  as  briefly  as  possible 
the  judiciary . In  this  branch  of  the  public  service 
it  will  be  very  apparent  to  those  who  examine  it 


16 


that  great  and  important  changes  have  been  made 
in  the  judiciary  system  of  Louisiana. 

Erom  simplicity  and  economy,  which  were  prom- 
inent and  controlling  elements  iu  the  constitution 
of  1852  (a  constitution  framed  in  the  interests  and 
for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  in  successful  ope- 
ration until  suppressed  by  the  results  of  the  late 
civil  war),  we  are  to  pass,  if  the  proposed  con- 
stitution is  adopted,  under  a judicial  system  exceed- 
ingly complex  and  eminently  defective  in  the  all- 
important  element  of  economy.  This  judicial  sys- 
tem is  understood  to  have  been  the  work  of  twenty- 
one  lawyers,  three  of  whom  were  judges,  who  had 
temporarily  vacated  their  otfices  to  be  in  the  con- 
vention. That  a committe  thus  composed  should 
have  constructed  a judicial  system  acceptable  to  the 
legal  profession,  as  well  as  to  aspirants  to  judicial 
honors  and  emoluments,  was,  perhaps,  to  have  been 
expected.  In  this  remark  we  mean  no  reflection 
upon  the  gentlemen  composing  the  committee ; but 
whilst  we  bow  with  respectful  deference  to  their 
superior  learning  and  combined  wisdom,  we  beg 
leave  to  say  that  they  did  not,  in  our  humble  judg- 
ment, like  wise  master-builders,  first  set  down  and 
count  the  cost.  We  have,  as  we  think,  a light, 
a precedent,  to  which  we  beg  leave  to  appeal  upon 
this  question. 

Under  the  constitution  of  1852  the  judicial  sys- 
tem, covering  the  entire  country  parishes  outside  of 


17 


the  parish  of  Orleans,  cost  the  poeple  $59, 100.  There 
were  eighteen  judicial  districts,  with  salaries  to  the 
presiding  judges  of  $2,500  each,  and  eighteen  dis- 
trict attorneyships,  with  salaries  of  $800  each. 
Under  the  constitution  now  before  the  people  the 
judicial  system  proposed  to  be  established,  covering 
the  entire  country  parishes  outside  of  the  parish 
of  Orleans,  is  to  cost  the  people  $141,000.  That  is, 
there  are  to  be  twenty-six  judicial  districts,  with  power 
granted  to  the  legislature  to  increase  the  number  to 
thirty,  with  judicial  salaries  of  $3,000  for  each  pre- 
siding judge.  There  are  to  be  twenty-six  district 
attorneys,  with  salaries  of  $1,000  each.  There  is 
to  be  a court  of  appeals,  intermediate  betwen  the 
district  court  and  the  supreme  court,  composed  of 
ten  judges,  with  salaries  of  $4,000  each,  this  last 
amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  $40,000. 

Now  the  question  which  we  propound  to  the 
authors  of  this  system,  to  its  defenders  and  sup- 
porters, is  this  : Have  the  property  and  estates,  with 
the  various  elements  that  enter  into  litigation,  which 
are  to  pass  under  judicial  administration  and 
guardianship,  increased  so  greatly  since  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution  of  1852,  and  its  suppression  by 
the  results  of  the  late  war,  as  to  require  this 
immense  increase  of  judicial  forces  and  attorney- 

ships,  and  this  immense  outlay  in  otficial  emolu- 
ments ? 

Let  the  masses  of  the  people,  a large  majority  of 


18 


whom  have  been  reduced,  by  the  deplorable  vicissi- 
tudes through  which  the  country  has  passed  since 
the  inauguration  of  the  late  war,  to  the  naked 
position  or  platform  of  food  and  raiment  and  habi- 
tation to  dwell  in,  and  but  little  more,  answer  the 
above  propounded  question. 

Let  the  great  majority  of  the  legal  profes- 
sion, w ho  universally  complain  of  a great  dearth 
in  professional  emoluments,  answer  the  ques- 
tion.  The  writer  of  this  review  lias  some  expe- 
rience, as  well  as  knowledge,  acquired  from  his 
brethren  of  the  bar  in  different  portions  of  the 
State.  During  a brief  sojourn  in  the  town  of 
Marksville,  the  seat  of  justice  of  the  once  rich  and 
flourishing  parish  of  Avoyelles,  in  the  year  1876, 
he  was  advised  by  a respectable  member  of  the  pro- 
fession that  there  were  twenty-one  lawyers  in 
Marksville,  and  that  there  wras  not  more  business  to 
do  than  one  competent  and  efficient  lawyer  ought 
to  be  able  to  do. 

Within  the  last  few  months  the  writer,  in  an  in- 
terview with  a prominent  member  of  the  bar  from 
the  city  of  Baton  Bouge,  inquired  of  him  how  the 
profession  was  there.  Said  he,  “ It  is  dead  ; there  is 
nothing  to  do.”  Bare  exceptions,  in  some  portions  of 
the  State,  may  occur  to  the  foregoing  statements  of 
respectable  members  of  the  profession,  but  they  are 
exceptional  cases.  But  if  the  lawyers  have  so  little 
to  do,  what  are  the  judges  to  have  to  do  ? Of  course 


19 


the  abolition  of  slavery,  with  all  slave  contracts,  and 
the  system  in  all  its  ramifications,  would  cut  down 
the  sources  of  litigation  of  judicial  labors  and  pro- 
fessional emoluments  at  least  one-half  in  a large 
majority  of  the  country  parishes,  whilst  the  reduced 
condition  of  the  masses  of  the  people  would  greatly 
diminish  litigation,  through  their  inability  to  sustain 
its  costs  and  its  burdens,  and  thereby  diminish 
greatly  the  judicial  labors, 

The  following  exhibit  will  serve  as  a sample  of 
the  judicial  system  as  organized  by  the  constitution 
before  the  people.  Under  the  constitution  of  1852, 
in  force  until  1861,  the  seven  Eiorida  parishes  were 
organized  into  two  judicial  districts,  with  a salary 
in  each  of  $2,500;  also  one  district  attorney  in  each 
district,  with  a salary  of  $800,  making,  for  the 


Eiorida  parishes,  judicial  emoluments $5,000 

Attorneyships 1,600 


$6,600 

Under  the  constitution  before  the  people  the  par- 
ish of  Pointe  Coupee  has  been  added  to  the  Eiorida 
parishes,  and  together  have  been  converted  into  four 
judicial  districts,  with  a judicial  salary  attached  to 


each  of  $3,000,  making $12,000 

Eour  attorneyships,  $1,000  each 4,000 


$16,000 

To  the  foregoing  judicial  emoluments  and  attorney- 


20 


ships  is  to  be  added  the  pro  rata  of  these  nine  par- 
ishes of  $40,000  for  the  courts  of  appeal  which  are 
to  extend  over  the  country  parishes — say  $7,500, — 
making  in  the  aggregate  $23,500  for  the  same  terri- 
torial jurisdiction,  exclusive  of  Pointe  Coupee,  where 
there  was  but  $6,600  to  be  borne  by  the  people  un- 
der the  constitution  of  1852. 

To  the  average  mind  of  the  citizen  the  question 
will  naturally  arise  as  to  how  official  emoluments 
have  so  immensely  increased,  whilst  the  revenues  of 
the  country  have  so  immensely  declined,  since  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution  of  1852  and  its  suppres- 
sion in  1864.  Then  the  country  was  rich  and  pros- 
perous, and  official  emoluments  Avere  simply 
compensative  for  official  duties  performed.  Now 
the  country  is  poor  and  the  government  bankrupt,, 
and  a corps  of  officials  is  to  be  placed  upon  a plat- 
form having  no  foundation  injustice,  equity  or  rightr 
and  as  far  above  the  masses  of  the  people  as  the- 
owner  of  a hundred  slaves  occupied  above  the  day- 
laboring  white  man  of  the  country.  At  this  point 
it  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  suggest  that  according 
to  indications  “this  white  man’s  government”  is  to 
be  sustained  by  the  fruits  of  the  white  man’s  labor. 

Upon  the  question  of  economy  in  the  judicial  or- 
ganization, it  is  proper  to  consider  what  is  to  be  done 
with  the  supreme  court  of  the  State.  It  will  be 
seen  that  their  salaries  are  to  be  cut  down  from 
$7,500  for  the  chief  justice,  and  from  $7,000  for  the 


21 


four  associate  justices,  to  $5,000  each,  because  they 
are  unable  to  do  the  work  they  bargained  for.  Thus  it 
will  be  seen  that  by  this  reduction  of  the  salaries  of 
the  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  there  has  been  a say- 
ing of  judicial  emoluments  of  $10,500 — ten  thousand 
of  which  might  easily  have  been  divided  between  two 
additional  judges,  which  would  have  constituted  a 
court  of  seven,  which  would  doubtless  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  perform  the  appellate  labors  of  that  tribunal, 
with  $500  saved,  especially  as  the  sources  of  litigation 
which  have  overburdened  the  supremo  court  must 
rapidly  diminish  ; as  the  vicious  legislation  that 
has  gone  upon  the  statute  book  in  the  last  ten  years 
has  been  in  a great  measure  repealed,  and  monopo- 
lies, corporations  and  privileges  abolished,  whilst 
contest  for  the  loaves  and  fishes  of  office,  which  has 
formed  a staple  subject  of  litigation  heretofore,  must, 
under  a sound  conservative  administration  of  the 
government,  rapidly  diminish. 

Upon  the  score  of  economy  and  necessity,  this  inter- 
mediate court  ot  appeals  between  the  district  and 
supreme  courts  of  necessity  can  never  receive  the 
sanction  of  those  who  have  the  burdens  of  govern- 
ment to  bear. 

Will  it  Jbe  contended  that  the  establishment  of 
this  court  was  necessitated  by  the  abolishment  of 
the  parish  court  system  $ This  system  had  ceased 
to  have  any  existence  in  Louisiana  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  constitution  of  18f5,  and  was  amply 


22 


provided  for,  so  far  as  the  probate  jurisdiction  of  that 
court  was  concerned,  by  the  following  article  of  the 
constitution  of  1852  : 

“ Article  76.  The  legislature  shall  have  power 
to  vest  in  clerks  of  courts  authority  to  grant  such 
orders  and  do  such  acts  as  may  be  necessary  for  the 
furtherance  of  the  administration  of  justice,  and  in 
all  cases  the  power  thus  granted  shall  be  specific 
and  determined.”  Under  this  authority  a perfect 
system  of  probate  was  organized  by  the  legislature,, 
under  which  the  clerks  of  the  district  courts  were 
clothed  with  plenary  authority  to  settle  up  estates, 
excepting  in  contested  cases,  for  which  cases  a docket 
was  prepared  and  laid  before  the  presiding  judge  of 
the  district  court,  who  was,  under  the  statutory 
provisions,  ex-officio  judge  of  probate.  His  decisions 
being  rendered  in  contested  cases  were  return- 
ed to  the  bclerk  for  final  settlement,  which  wa& 
done  by  the  clerks,  and  notaries  public  for 
clerks,  and  notarial  fees  out  of  each  estate  set- 
tled up,  no  increase  of  emoluments  being  allowed 
to  the  [presiding  judge  of  the  district  for  his  services 
as  ex-officio  judge  of  probate.  This,  this,  was 
economy. 

We  propose  to  speak  now  of  the  complexity  and 
practical  operations  of  the  judicial  system  organized 
under  the  constitution  before  the  people.  In  this 
respect  it  compares  unfavorably,  very  unfavorably. 


23 


with  both  the  systems  under  the  constitutions  of 
1852  and  1868. 

Nothing  could  be  more  simple  and  easily  under- 
stood than  the  practical  workings  of  the  systems 
under  both  of  those  constitutions. 

In  all  cases  subject  to  appeal  from  the  district 
court  the  appeal  was  direct  to  the  supreme  court. 
No  division  of  cases  of  appeal  between  an  interme- 
diate court  of  appeal  and  the  supreme  court, 
whose  decisions  were  in  the  last  resort,  and  served 
to  harmonize  and  unify  the  decisions  of  both  courts 
on  all  questions  of  law. 

Under  the  proposed  system,  all  cases  of  appeal 
from  the  district  court,  in  which  the  amount  in- 
volved is  under  $1,000,  must  be  taken  before  the  in- 
termediate court  of  appeals,  or  circuit  court,  whose 
decisions  are  to  be  final  (according  to  the  con- 
struction put  upon  the  system  by  some  of  its 
authors.) 

What,  then,  is  to  be  the  result  of  the  practical  op- 
erations of  this  complex  system  of  courts^  Neces- 
sarily two  distinct  bodies  of  jurisprudence  must 
grow  up. 

The  district  judges  must,  therefore,  in  trying 
cases,  look  well  to  the  amount  involved,  and  if  it 
exceed  $1,000,  look  to  the  decisions  of  the  supreme 
appelate  court  for  precedents  to  guide  the  course  of 
judicial  investigations  and  of  his  judgments. 

If,  on  the  contrary,  the  amount  involved  in  the 


24 


case  before  tbe  district  judge  falls  below  $1,000,  in 
that  case  be  must  look  in  the  decisions  of  the  circuit 
court  for  precedents  to  guide  him  in  his  judicial  in- 
vestigations and  final  judgment.  For,  although  no 
provision  seems  to  have  been  made  for  a reporter 
of  the  decisions  of  the  circuit  courts,  they  are  nec- 
essarily to  be  courts  of  record,  and  the}T  will  doubt- 
less feel  inclined  to  adhere  to  the  maxim  of  stare 
decisis — that  is,  to  adhere  to  previous  decisions. 

But  another  grave  difficulty  springs  up  out  of  this 
complex  system.  There  are  to  be  five  circuits,  with 
two  judges  to  each,  the  judges  of  the  several  cir- 
cuits are  to  be  independent  of  each  other,  each  re- 
volving around  within  their  own  sphere  of  jurisdic- 
tion. There  must,  therefore,  be  a still  more  complex 
body  of  jurisprudence  springing  up  in  the  State. 
That  settled  in  each  circuit  being  independent  and 
distinct  from  the  decisions  rendered  in  the  other 
circuits,  as  well  as  from  the  supreme  court. 

If,  on  t lie  contrary,  the  power  given  to  the 
supreme  court,  of  supervision  over  all  inferior 
courts,  by  granting  writs  of  mandamus,  prohibi- 
tion, certiorari',  quo  warranto , etc .,  involve  the 
power  of  correcting  errors  of  law  in  all  inferior, 
courts,  then  the  system  becomes  still  more  complex 
apd  expensive  to  litigants,  and  involves  a principle 
quite  unknown  to  the  laws  and  jurisprudence  of 
Louisiana,  viz  : the  trial  of  civil  cases  upon  ques- 
tions of  law  distinct  from  the  facts  or  equity  of  the 


case. 


25 


One  thing  is  very  apparent  in  this  system- — in- 
novation ! inovation  ! inovation  ! 

It  has  been  said  that  our  late  convention  made 
diligent  search  in  the  constitutions  of  various 
States  of  the  Union  for  lights  to  guide  them  in 
framing  a constitution  for  Louisiana.  Ii  is  greatly 
to  be  deplored  that,  so  far  as  the  interests  of  the  tax- 
payers of  Louisiana  are  concerned,  they  had 
not  fallen  upon  the  constitution  of  our  sister  State 
of  Mississippi,  and  some  of  the  legislation  thereun- 
der. 

The  following  exhibit,  based  upon  data  derived 
from  a reliable  source,  is  worthy  of  the  profound 
consideration  of  the  people  of  Louisiana  at  this 
time  : 

The  legislature  of  Mississippi  is  composed  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  members  in  the  lower  house, 
and  thirty  seven  in  the  senate.  They  meet  bienni- 
ally, and  are  allowed  three  hundred  dollars  per 


session,  exclusive  of  mileage.  Their  allowance 

would  therefore  amount  to,  annually $23*550 

Governor’s  salary,  per  annum 4,000 

3 Supreme  Judges,  $3,500  each 10,500 

10  Circuit  Judges,  2,500  “ 25,000 

10  Chancellors,  2,000  “ 20,000 

2 additional  Circuit  Judges,  $1,200  each.  . . 2,400 

Secretary  of  State 2,500 

1 Clerk 800 

State  Treasurer. 2,000 


26 


1 Clerk.. , 800 

Auditor  of  Public  Accounts 2,000 

4 Clerks  at  $ 800  each 3,200 

Attorney-General 2,000 

Private  Secretary  of  the  Governor 800 

10  District  Attorneys,  at  $1,200  each 13,200 

Lieutenant  Governor 800 


Total $113,550 


The  foregoing  exhibit  is  based  upon  appropria- 
tions made  by  the  legislature  of  Mississippi  in  1878. 

Thus  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  entire  govern- 
ment of  Mississippi  costs  the  people  (fortunately 
blessed  with  a cheap  and  economical  government) 
$30,450  less  than  the  judgeships  and  district  at  tor- 
ships  in  the  parishes  of  Louisiana,  outside  of  the 
parish  of  Orleans,  are  to  cost  the  t ax-payers  here. 

THE  PUBLIC  DEBT. 

I propose  next  to  consider  the  subject  of  the 
State  debt,  as  acted  upon  by  the  convention,  page 
70  of  the  new  constitution  : 

“Article  1.  The  interest  to  be  paid  on  the  con- 
solidated bonds  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  be  and  is 
hereby  fixed  at  two  per  cent,  per  annum  for  five 
years  from  the  first  of  January,  1880,  three  per 
cent,  per  annum  for  fifteen  years,  and  four  per  cent, 
per  annum  thereafter,  payable  semi-annually  ; and 
there  shall  be  levied  an  annual  tax  sufficient  for  the 
full  payment  of  said  interest,  not  exceeding  three 


27 


mills,  tlie  limit  of  all  State  tax  being  hereby  fixed 
at  six  mills  ; provided , the  holders  of  consolidated 
bonds,  may,  at  their  option,  demand  in  exchange 
for  the  bonds  held  by  them,  bonds  of  the  denomi- 
nation of  five  dollars,  one  hundred  dollars,  five 
hundred  dollars,  one  thousand  dollars,  to  be  issued 
at  the  rate  of  seventy- five  cents  on  the  dollar  of 
bonds  held  and  to  be  surrendered  by  such  holders, 
the  said  new  issue  to  bear  interest  at  the  rate  of 
four  per  cent,  per  annum,  payable  semi-annually. 

“Art.  2.  The  holders  of  the  consolidated  bonds 
may  at  any  time  present  their  bonds  to  the 
State  treasurer,  or  to  an  agent  to  be  appointed  by 
the  governor — one  in  the  city  of  Yew  York  and 
the  other  in  the  city  of  London — and  the  said 
treasurer  or  agent,  as  the  case  may  be,  shall  indorse 
or  stamp  thereon  the  words,  ‘ interest  reduced  to 
two  per  cent,  per  annum  for  five  years  from 
January  1,  1880,  three  per  cent,  per  annum  for  fif- 
teen years  and  four  per  cent,  per  annum  thereaf- 
ter provided , the  holder  or  holders  of  said  bonds 
may  apply  to  the  treasurer  for  an  exchange  of 
bonds,  as  provided  in  provided  in  the  preceding; 
article. 

“Art.  3.  The  coupon  of  said  consolidated  bonds 
falling  due  the  first  of  January,  1880,  be  and  the 
same  is  hereby  remitted,  and  any  interest  taxes  col- 
lected to  meet  said  coupon  are  hereby  transferred 
to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  State  government.” 


28 


Upon  the  subject  above  stated  I beg  leave  to 
submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  people  the  follow- 
ing simple  propositions,  viz  : 

I.  The  constitution  is  wholly  distinct  from  the 
public  debt,  although  both  are  to  be  voted  for  at 
once  and  the  same  time.  Each  therefore  should 
stand  upon  its  own  merits. 

The  first  and  all  important  consideration  is  the 
constitution.  If  it  be  such  as  satisfies  the  people, 
and  in  their  judgment  is  adapted  to  the  present  con- 
dition of  the  country,  and  calculated  to  promote  its 
future  welfare  and  prosperity,  without  throwing 
any  needless  burden  upon  them  in  their  impover- 
ished condition,  they  should  ratify  it.  If  it  be  not 
such,  then,  in  the  exercise  of  their  own  sovereign 
and  inalienable  rights,  they  should  reject  it. 

II.  Should  the  people  reject  both  the  constitu' 
tion  and  the  ordinance  upon  the  State  debt,  they 
will  be  in  no  worse  condition  than  they  were  before 
conventional  action  upon  it,  as  it  would  be  perfectly 
competent  for  the  legislature  to  do  all  and  more 
than  the  convention  have  done  to  relieve  the  peo- 
ple, if  they  saw  fit.  The  legislature  might  repeal 
all  laws  imposing  a tax  upon  them  for  the 
payment  of  the  interest  upon  the  State  debt — I 
don’t  say  they  ought  to  do  it,  far  from  it ; and  then 
the  State  would  simply  occupy  the  passive  position 
of  a non-paying  debtor.  The  legislature  might  also 
pass  an  act  proposing  to  compound  with  the  credi- 


29 


tors  upon  such  terms  as  the  people  could  comply 
Avith,  and,  if  accepted,  would  he  just  as  binding 
upon  the  creditors  of  the  State  as  the  ordinance  of 
the  convention. 

But  suppose  the  creditors  should  accept  the  basis 
of  compounding Avith  the  State  at  seventy-tive  dollars 
on  the  hundred,  and  receive  a neAV  issue  of  bonds, 
bearing  interest  at  four  per  cent,  per  annum  from 
date,  under  a limit  of  six  mills  on  the  dollar  (one 
for  levee  purposes)0?  This  Avould  be  a new  debt,,  and 
ten  fold  more  binding  upon  the  public  conscience 
than  the  old  bonds. 

Under  what  circumstances  and  upon  Avhat  contin- 
gencies is  this  limitation  upon  taxation  to  take 
effect,  which  is  so  strongly  urged  as  an  argument 
in  favor  of  the  ratification  of  the  constitution0?  Not 
in  a curtailment  of  the  official  emoluments  of  the 
multitudinous  officers  of  the  government  ; not  in 
starving  out  the  multitudinous  institutions  estab- 
lished and  sustained  by  the  government  ? Of 
course  not.  What  then0?  Suppose  the  universal 
shrinkage  and  downward  tendency  in  property,  on 
landed  estates  in  the  country  particularly,  should 
continue  untilsix  mills  on  the  dollar  upon  a cash  assess- 
ment of  property  Avould  be  insufficient  to  bear  the 
burdens  of  the  government  and  its  institutions,  and 
pay  the  interest  on  the  new  issue  of  bonds  (nine 
millions  at  four  per  cent.),  Avhere  would  the  tax 
limitation  take  effects  In  necessitating  the  non- 


30 


payment  of  the  interest  upon  the  public  debt.  Had 
the  tax  limitation  reserved  the  interest  upon  the 
new  issue  of  bonds  provided  for  in  the  ordinance, 
it  would  have  presented  a far  more  favorable  aspect 
of  public  faith  and  of  true  public  policy. 

A few  sentiments  expressed  by  the  Father  of  his 
country,  in  a circular  letter  addressed  to  the  execu- 
tives of  the  several  States  on  his  retirement  from 
the  presidency  for  the  last  time,  will  be  in  place 
here:  “It  cannot  be  possible  that  the  Great  Govern- 
or of  the  universe  has  failed  to  connect  the  interest 
of  States,  as  well  as  of  individuals,  with  their 
duty.” 

What  is  the  true  and  only  reliable  limitation  to 
taxation  % It  is  economy  in  the  administration  of 
the  government.  And  what  is  economy  in  the 
administration  of  governments  It  is  simple 
honesty — no  more  no  less ; no  greater  drafts  to  be 
drawn  upon  the  people  in  the  shape  of  taxes  than 
are  really  necessary  to  carry  on  the  government  and 
render  to  every  man  his  due. 

But  it  is  said  that  this  constitution  has  saved  the 
people  a million  of  dollars.  In  what  way,  outside 
of  the  action  of  the  convention  upon  the  public 
debtl  All  that  has  thus  been  saved  the  people 
could  have  been  effected  by  the  legislature. 

What  has  it  saved,  on  the  basis  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  1852  1 It  has  nearly  trebled  the  judicial 
burdens  of  the  people.  And  how  can  democratic 
conservatives  appeal  to  the  constitution  of  1838,  as 


31 


*a  standard  or  test  of  the  merit  or  demerit  of  the 
present  constitution  % 

A REMARKABLE  CONTRAST. 

The  following  are  numbers  of  articles  in  the  several 
constitutions  of  Louisiana,  viz  : In  the  constitution 
of  1845,  152  ; 1852,  155  ; 1864,  155  ; 1868,  161 ; 
1879,  268,  besides  numerous  miscellaneous  articles. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  figures  that  there 
are  167  more  articles  in  the  constitution  before  the 
people  than  in  any  of  the  previous  constitutions, 
chiefly  upon  legislative  subjects,  which  are  thus  put 
beyond  legislative  action,  without  an  amendment 
to  the  constitution.  Meanwhile,  as  before  observed, 
everything  partaking  of  the  character  of  a public 
office,  from  the  governor  and  general  assembly, 
down  to  a justice  of  a peace,  being  locked  up  in 
the  constitution,  goes  into  the  political  w heel  of  for- 
tune as  so  many  prizes  to  be  won  or  lost  by  the  con- 
testanrs,  upon  the  contingency  of  the  ratification  of 
the  constitution.  God  save  my  country  ! 

In  the  general  notices  of  the  newspaper  press,  the 
people,  those  who  read  the  papers,  are  advised  that 
the  constitution  will  be  ratified  by  a large  majority. 
Can  these  utterances  of  the  oracles  of  the  press,  or 
behind  the  press , be  regarded  as  true  exponents  of 
the  sense  and  sentiments  of  the  people,  when  not 
one  in  ten  thousand  of  them,  outside  of  the  parish  of 
Orleans,  has  ever  seen  the  constitution  ? Or  is  it 
expected  that  the  masses  will  accept  the  constitution 
on  party  account , without  regard  to  its  merits  or 


32 


demerits  ? If  so,  I can  only  say  that  I have  greatly 
overrated  the  patriotism  and  intelligence  of  my 
honored  fellow-citizens  of  Louisiana.  But  this  T 
have  not  done — at  least  I shall  repel  such  a conclu- 
sion until  the  people  themselves  are  heard  from. 
For  myself  1 can  onlv  say  that  I can  never  forget 
that  I have  a country  to  serve , as  well  as  a party  to  obey - 

But  we  are  to  accept  the  constitution  as  a choice  of 
evils.  Why  sol  When,  where,  or  by  what  unfor- 
seen  calamity  have  the  people  lost  their  right  to 
have  a government  of  their  choice  ? Are  they  not 
free1?  Are  they  not  sovereign  to-day'?  I solemnly 
declare  before  God  that  outside  of  the  multitude 
who  are  seeking  to  be  the  beneficiaries  of  this  newly 
organized  political  household  and  their  sympathi- 
zers, there  is  not  one  man  in  a thousand  who  would 
not  embrace,  as  the  greatest  of  political  blessings, 
the  constitution  of  his  fathers — the  constitution  of 
Louisiana  in  the  days  of  her  prosperity  and  glory — 
the  constitution  of  1852.  The  writer  has  never  seen 
one  such  man. 

Let  the  people  then  express  their  choice  and  their 
sovereign  will  by  rejecting  the  constitution  now 
before  them,  and  then  in  their  sovereign  right  and 
authority  demand  at  the  hands  of  the  legislature, 
elected  in  1878,  at  their  session  in  January  next,  a 
restoration  of  the  constitution  of  1852 . 

Respectfully  submitted  to  the  people. 

JAMES  H.  MUSE. 


REFERENCES : 


COMMUNICATIONS  ADDRESSED  TO  GOVERNOR  NICHOLLS. 


New  Orleans,  December  5th,  1878. 

The  undersigned  members  of  the  bar  of  Louisiana,  hereby 
certify  that  we  have  known  the  Honorable  James  H.  Muse,  a 
resident  of  the  State  of  Louisiana  for  upwards  of  twenty  years. 
Mr.  Muse  is  an  eminent  lawyer,  and  was  for  many  years  a 
distinguished  member  of  the  legislature  of  this  State.  He  is  a 
learned,  intelligent,  upright  and  honorable  gentleman 

THOS.  J.  COOLEY,  J.  M.  COOLEY.  T.  G.  HUNT,  RAN- 
DELL  HUNT,  THOS.  J.  SEMMES,  W.  H.  FOSTER,  G.  W.  H. 
MARE. 

I cheerfully  concur  in  the  endorsement  of  Judge  Muse  by  the 
distinguished  members  of  the  bar  signing  above. 

E A.  BURKE. 


New  Orleans,  December,  2d,  1878. 

To  His  Excellency,  Francis  T.  Nicholls , Gov.  of  Louisiana : 

Dear  Sir : — Without  expressing  a preference  for  any  of  the 
distinguished  names  which  have  been  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  vacancy  on  the  supreme  bench,  it  is  proper  for  me  to 
say  that  I have  been  acquainted  with  J.  H.  Muse,  Esq.,  for 
forty  years ; that  he  was  my  partner  when  I first  commenced 
the  practice  of  law  in  Louisiana,  and  so  continued  for  ten  or 
twelve  years,  with  a short  interval ; that  since  I first  knew  him 
he  has  held  the  position  of  one  of  the  most  prominent,  influen- 
tial members  of  the  bar  of  his  part  of  the  State  ; that  he  has 
always  been  esteemed  by  his  neighbors,  and  I believe  that  his 


34 


appointment  would  give  great  satisfaction,  not  only  to  the  bar 
and  the  people  of  the  Florida  parishes,  but  to  his  numerous 
friends  in  other  parts  of  the  State. 

Very  respectfully, 

E.  T.  MERRICK,  Ex-Chief  Justice. 


To  His  Excellency , the  Governor  of  Louisiana  : 

The  undersigned,  referring  to  the  petition  presented  by  the 
district  judge,  district  attorney  and  members  of  the  bar  of 
the  sixth  judicial  district,  in  behalf  of  the  appointment  of 
Hon.  James  H.  Muse,  of  Tangipahoa,  Louiana,  to  the  vacant 
position  of  "associate  justice  of  the  supreme  court,  begs  leave 
to  join  in  said  petition,  and  add  to  that,  as  is  well  known  in  this 
State,  that  Mr  Muse  has  been  an  active  practitioner  at  the  bar 
of  this  State  for  perhaps  forty  years,  and  as  such  has  held  and 
maintained  a deservedly  high  position  throughout  the  State, 
and  particularly  in  the  districts  embracing  the  Felicianas,  Iber- 
ville, the  parishes  of  Baton  Rouge,  and  the  districts  east  there- 
of, as  well  as  in  the  supreme  and  district  courts  at  New  Orleans. 

That  he  is  of  mature  age  and  experience,  great  legal  learn- 
ing, and  that  the  position  he  holds  is  the  result  of  his  own 
energetic  labors,  he  being  a self-educated  man. 

That  he  is  of  unblemished  moral  character,  qualified  by  legal 
learning  and  experience,  moral  and  social  position,  for  the  high 
office  for  which  his  friends  have  presented  his  name  ; and  that 
in  all  the  recent  struggles  of  our  State  for  self-government,  he 
has  been  an  active  laborer  in  the  cause  of  the  liberties  ot 
our  State  and  her  people. 

His  appointment  would  gratify  a wide  circle  of  friends  and 
admirers. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

THOS.  C.  W.  ELLIS, 

Attorney  at  law. 


New  Orleans,  La.,  Dec.  2d,  1878. 


35 


Governor  F.  T.  FichoUs  : 

Dear  Sir  : I was  telegraphed  before  leaving  the  city  to  call 
upon  you  in  the  interest  of  Hon.  James  H.  Muse,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  vacancy  created  by  the  death  of  Judge  Egan. 
This  gentleman  is  an  attorney  of  many  years  practice,  has  been 
a member  of  the  general  assembly,  and  is  decidedly  the  most 
prominent  man  and  member  of  the  bar  in  this  section  of  the 
State.  Our  people  are  anxious  for  his  appointment,  and  I beg 
leave  to  remind  you  that  this  section  of  the  country  has  secured 
no  representation  in  appointments  to  prominent  positions. 
Earnestly  hoping  that  you  will  consider  his  and  our  claims, 

I remain  respectfully  yours, 

CHAS.  E.  LEA. 


We  join  in  this  appeal  and  statement,  and  respectfully  urge 
favorable  consideration. 


J.  M.  WRIGHT,  District  Attorney. 
WILLIAM  DUNCAN,  District  Judge. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


3 0112  068098437 


gHinp 

§31 

1 89iH 


HI 


